---

Flood and Water Management Bill

My Lords, in moving Amendment 16 I shall speak also to the others in this sweeping group of amendments which, in some ways, gets to the heart of the structure of the Bill. This is an important subject area and deals with the drawing up of the national and local strategies for managing flood and coastal erosion risks. We will deal later with the relationship between local and national strategies but, for the purpose of this debate, we are broadly content with the twin-track approach. I suspect the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, is somewhat amused by that. I find it pleasing that the Bill has been constructed in the way that it has, reflecting the reciprocity of national and local obligations. Clause 7 deals with the national strategy for England and Clause 8 with the national strategy for Wales, with the Environment Agency tasked with the former job and Welsh Ministers with the latter. Clause 9 deals with local strategies for England and Clause 10 with local strategies for Wales. It is a good principle to develop this twin-track approach within the symmetry of the structure so that we can exploit the benefits of expertise and local knowledge. It would be perhaps as well if I mention at this point the role of the IDBs. I do not think internal drainage boards will feature much in the debates of the Committee because the major section on internal drainage boards was removed from the draft Bill. However, they are a key delivery agency of any proper management of floods and water and I hope their role will be sustained by this new legislation and encouraged by the Government. If any body is designed to manage water on a catchments area basis, it is indeed the IDBs. I hope they will be encouraged to maintain a leading role in this respect. The clauses require that the strategies be subject to consultation. We would not consider anything otherwise to be appropriate. The amendments, however, probe who must be consulted. Each of the four groups which draw up the strategies must consult with each other, with the relevant management authorities and, where necessary, with the Scottish Ministers. Anyone else, however, is simply described as "the public". That is plainly a very wide category and, while it is right and proper that the public should be consulted, details seem rather vague. Would that obligation be met simply by posting a notice in local or national newspapers; would that be sufficient? What form would or should public consultation take? I have suggested in my amendments bodies which would seem prime candidates to be consulted—the water companies, sewerage undertakers and bodies representing landowners likely to be directly affected by flooding and coastal erosion. All of these have a direct interest in any strategy that emerges, locally or nationally. Landowners and managers are instrumental in protecting other land from flooding because it is in their own interests. They will have not only opinions but experience and expertise which should provide an invaluable resource. It therefore seems entirely sensible that the agency or the responsible authorities should consult landowners and managers about the national flood and coastal erosion risk management strategy. It is perhaps less cumbersome to have bodies representing owners and managers rather than the owners and managers themselves. Such parties will play a large role in achieving the objectives that we have set out in the section about consultation. The requirement to consult only "the public" seems too woolly. Surely it would be better to have a full engagement with those bodies and groups which have the most at stake. The same is true of the water companies and sewerage undertakers. When discussing an earlier set of amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, who is not in his place, gave graphic illustrations of the unpleasantness of sewage flooding. The water companies and sewerage undertakers will be directly involved if there is flooding. I cannot imagine that anyone would think that they should not be consulted. Their relevance is so fundamental that I can see justification for mentioning them in the Bill. The Minister may not be minded to do so. I imagine he might suggest that to include some would implicitly include others. That is the old list argument again, but a number of lists are included in the Bill. However, I hope that he will be able to indicate the guidelines the department will doubtless draw up to advise on strategies. I suspect that this will be key. It seems to me that there is almost no chance that the bodies I have mentioned would not feature highly in any consultation, but I wonder whether there will be a requirement to give extra weight to the views of such organisations. I would appreciate hearing more details from the Minister about the way that strategies will be drawn up. I press him to provide draft guidelines at the earliest opportunity. It makes the scrutiny of legislation very much easier, and better, when Parliament is kept up to date with what exactly the Government are asking us to legislate on. I think at this stage I am likely to get assurances from the Minister rather than anything else, but even assurances would be useful to have on the record as regards who will play what role in the national and local strategies. I beg to move.